The numbers that I got for contrast are the numbers I got for contrast. Confirmed it via Spder's built in suite and using ColorHCFR. Both were taken from the center of the screen and both programs came back with the same results.

They were indeed lower than what every other IPS monitor we have tested has given. YMMV but that is what we got and it lines up with my own judgment when compared against the others I have tested (ie its most likely a 6 bit panel going up against 8 bit panels). The 2412 is very good entry level IPS panel, but it can not compete against the 2410 (which by your numbers would place the 2412 ahead of the 2410). This is why the difference in pricing and why the 2410 will be sold alongside the 2412.

You can pickup the basic Spyder 3 Express. The only difference betwen the various Spyder 3s's (IIRC) is the software. Should be able to pick one up for about 90 usd or so. Assuming you dont want to do anything fancy and just want to CLAIBRATE your monitor that is. If you want to get more fancy (and dont mind a bit of a learning curve) you could use the open source ColorHCFR program + Spyder 3 Express to tweak things to perfection. But honestly, the basic express software kit by itself will tweak things darn close.

I understand, but what I'm saying is either those numbers were received from a bad unit, or with a bad colorimeter, or with a bad setting. Something's up. If there weren't established reviews I'd probably say the numbers I got back in August were bad, or I somehow bought the cherrypicked golden sample.

Spyder3 sensors are not known to be the most accurate at measuring black levels, so being a bit off is normal, but PC Monitors | Computer Monitors got over 700:1 contrast and they also use Spyder3 sensor.

TFTCentral got over 1000:1 contrast, as did I, and Prad got over 800:1. Maybe you measured it in video mode, as Prad got a similar contrast number in Video mode, somewhere around 540:1.

I was asking about your equipment because an I1 Pro Spectrophotometer would give similar results, as they can't often detect black levels below 0.3 cdm/2, so I wanted to be sure why the contrast numbers are so low.

It should have nothing to do with the 6-bit+AFrc panel used in the U2412M vs. the 8-bit+AFrc panel in the Asus PA246Q and Dell U2410. This affects colors and gradations more than absolute black versus absolute white, or RGB levels of 0,0,0 versus 255,255,255.

In my comments I'm not comparing the U2410/Asus PA246Q with a U2412M. They have different targets, mostly those who need wide gamut and the associated high-bit panel and high-bit color lookup table required to use these in a calibrated color-managed workflow with minimal color losses.

And to be honest, the U2410 and PA246Q are not known as being contrast ratio champs. In fact they are definitely considered on the low-end of the scale, so your numbers for those two screens are in-line with what I've seen elsewhere.

The U2412M doesn't aspire to that target. It is an office-type monitor with low input lag and rudimentary scaling capabilities (ie. no 16:9 mode supported from HDMI type sources). This all makes it a good gaming screen. Less lag due to less image processing/buffering

There is a fair bit in this review I agree with in terms of the U2412M, including slightly reduced viewing angles, and the resulting very slight color shifts up close, slightly aggressive RTC/overdrive, etc... I also have a slight preference visually with CCFL back-lighting where the whites seem a tiny bit warmer and have less blue push.

Oh, and here is my post over on [H]ardforum with the service menu combo to access the overdrive setting: